mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

Starting to Accept Attrition

A year ago I was freaking out every time we lost a player. Boren's transfer sucked. So did Mallett. McGuffie too. But now, I'm accepting them a little more. The reason is that transfers have a different cause now than they did a year ago. Last season we were losing players because a) they didn't like the coaches, b) they didn't fit into the system, or c) they weren't good enough to start.

A was usually a straight-up loss of talent, and B represented a waste of talent. Now that RRod's got his players coming in, A and B are going away. Those are the ones that hurt the most on a wins-losses level. The most likely cause from now on will be C. While I truly hope the best for departures like O'Neill, we shouldn't freak out--if he were starter-material that would mean he's good and if he were good he'd be a starter.

For those of you who counter "Well, we need depth in case of emergency", lalalala I can't hear you.

Comment viewing options

I accept it more now than a year ago, especially when Rodriguez talked about only recruiting those who LOVE football. It appears that O'Neill didn't love football enough to put all the work in, so wish him luck and Mich football will be fine without him and all those unwilling to put in the effort required.

I think Clemons, Wermer, and O'Neill all fall under the "c" catagory... however, given the chaos from Boren/Mallett/McGuffie, the rumor-mill and PR nightmare (from the media and Irish-Sparty-Bucknuts) will continue to skew the truth of these departures for at least another year.

When Schiano left under the Carr administration, everyone was upset (for depth purposes) but realized that some kids just don't adapt well to college football's demands, or talent. UM fans wished him luck, media and foes barely noticed. It will be interesting to see how "the others" react to O'Neill's departure even though it appears to be for the exact same reasons as Schiano

As for loss of depth/talent, etc. As of now, we have 21 schollie's for 2010. We hopefully will have all 25 to give out so RR can get "his" people for 2010's season. If someone's heart isn't into football, or is afraid of competition, then I say sign his release and walk him to the door and thank him for his time. We'll use that schollie for a "deathbacker," "Quirkback," or "Safety-Backer"

The recent transfer I've been fine with, because they seem to be players that wouldn't of reached the field had they stayed, (barring injury to players ahead of them, or drastic changes) and were just eating up schollies.

the first time you get dumped it feels like the end of the world. The second time, it hurts like hell, but you know you have been through it before and will survive. Now I'm beginning to see that there are other left tackles in the sea and if Dann isn't willing to work for this relationship it is better to let him go. Oh wait, what was the question?

Perhaps signing two recruits (say a three-star and a four-star) is better than signing a single five-star recruit. If there is a surplus of competition at a position, those who were busts will likely leave. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, especially on the OL.

Ummm, unless the 5 star stays and lives up to his potential. Or the four star over reaches his potential. Or both 4 and 3 star recruits get hit by a bus as they step off the curb on state st, lost in thoughts of the NFL due to their new found glory.

Here we go, rationalizing the multitude of lower-ranked recruits in our class. There are a million variables. The best thing is to get the best talent we can. My guess is that having 0 5 start recruits is a bad thing.

"I came in and instituted an extremely rigorous summer training program–there had been none–and everyone told me it wouldn’t work, that people wouldn’t go for that in Ann Arbor. The team had a reputation for having good talent, but being soft. I did have some attrition, but the real football players stayed. I was harder on that Michigan team than I ever was on any other group... I killed them. I ran them into the ground."

"I was prepared for some attrition when I became Michigan's coach. I can honestly say we did not lose a guy who really could have helped us. I didn't lose any sleep over anyone who quit that spring..."
— G. Schembechler

Occasional excess is necessary to remedy the deadening effects of moderation.

I also agree with our post and like the three categories that you mentioned. Cases like "C" are very easy to deal with, and actually almost a blessing. Let's face it, if somebody's just not good enough, and do not really project to be good enough in the future, then in terms of pure talent acquisition it's optimal that they decide to leave.

That said I can't respect someone more than coming in highly touted, realize that they will never be featured/a starter and still graduate as a four-time letterman.

I sincerely do hope that he sticks with college and at least gets his degree.

“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” - Benjamin Franklin

There might be a "d" here, though it could be looked at as a sub-category of any of the first three:

Players who are, as RR said, "doing you a favor" by transferring.

I think that attrition is vital to the program until RR gets his personnel established. I would rather see those who don't fit leave now rather than, as earlier mentioned, "eat up" a scholly. RR needs to be able to recruit up to 25 players every year for the next few, and attrition helps provide him with the opportunity to do so.

Once the personnel is more appropriate to RR's schemes on both sides of the ball and there is quality depth at most positions, RR will be able to afford to be more selective in considering recruits. In the interim, a "shotgun" approach seems to be neccessary.

While it's disappointing to lose talented kids who I have hopes for in the future, losing a scholarship player can open doors for players in this years class we may not have otherwise been able to take. Just look at it as one more spot open for 2010 and hope we can get a good player for that spot!